Mahakumbh Fame Woman Gets Relief as MP High Court Quashes Birth Certificate Correction Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to a young woman who rose to prominence during the 2025 Mahakumbh, setting aside the order by which authorities had cancelled her earlier birth certificate and altered her date of birth from January 1, 2008, to December 30, 2009. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 398]

Directing the authority to reconsider her father's plea seeking correction of birth record after providing the petitioner with an effective opportunity of hearing, the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

"petitioner no.1 was not intimated regarding the application of respondent no.3/ father for correction of date of birth and she was not provided any opportunity of being heard resulting in violation of principle of natural justice... Accordingly, the order No.405/Na.Pa./2026 dated 31.03.2026 passed by Chief Municipal Officer, Maheshwar, District Khargone correcting the date of birth of petitioner no.1 by cancelling the entry dated 05.06.2025 in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2024, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Respondent no.5 is directed to decide the application of respondent no.3/ father of petitioner no.1 after affording the opportunity of effective hearing to the petitioner no.1 as per the law". 

After the petitioner gained prominence, she wished to be an aspiring Bollywood actress; therefore, her parents had applied for issuance of a birth certificate before the competent authority. The parents stated her birth date to be January 1, 2008, asserting that she was born at home. 

Following the prescribed procedure, the competent authority directed the registration of birth on June 5, 2025, and a birth certificate was issued stating her birth date as January 1, 2008. The record showed that an Aadhaar Card was also issued to her in 2015 with the same birth date, and a PAN card was subsequently issued in 2026. Additionally, an Electoral Photo Identity Card was issued to her after she attained the age of 18 years. The petitioner thereafter married her husband (petitioner no. 2) on March 11, 2026. 

After her marriage, her father approached the Block Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre, claiming that he subsequently learned from elderly relatives that his daughter was actually born at Government Hospital. On the basis of hospital records, a certificate was issued on March 19, 2026, and forwarded to the competent authority. 

The authorities subsequently cancelled the earlier birth entry and corrected the date of birth to December 30, 2009, invoking Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, with the MP Registration of Births and Deaths Act. 

The alteration was significant because the same would postpone the petitioner's attainment of majority by nearly two years. On the basis of the new date of birth, her father submitted a complaint based on which a crime was registered for kidnapping (Section 137(2) of the BNS) and subsequently, Sections 81, 83 and 87 of the BNS, 2023, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

Thus, the petitioner approached the MP High Court seeking relief.

The petitioner claimed that her father initially accompanied her and her husband but later opposed their relationship and allegedly threatened her with forced marriage. Therefore, she, along with petitioner no. 2, approached the Police Station in Thampanoor and filed a complaint alleging threats and coercion by her father. The petitioner thereafter got married in Kerala. 

After the marriage, the petitioner alleged that her father, along with his associates, manipulated her birth records to portray her as a minor. The petitioner also alleged that her father subsequently lodged an FIR claiming that petitioner no. 1 was missing since February 27, 2026. She claimed that her father had travelled with her to Kerala on March 2. 

The petitioner further alleged that the disputed documents were circulated in the media and on social media to portray petitioner no. 1 as a minor and her husband as a terrorist, characterizing their marriage as 'love jihad'. 

Apprehending arrest, the petitioners approached the Kerala High Court, which granted them interim protection from arrest on March 23, 2026. 

The bench noted that changing her date of birth had several civil consequences for the petitioner. The bench noted that such alteration could affect her right to vote, her independence to operate bank accounts, her capacity to enter into contracts, and the change could also expose her partner to criminal prosecution. 

The court noted that these consequences were of vital importance and even a temporary deprivation of rights for two years implicated the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Rejecting the respondent's argument that the father was informed regarding the alteration, the bench noted that the person who is being directly affected by the correction was not informed and was also not given an opportunity of hearing. The court held that when the petitioner herself was aggrieved, the intimation only to her father did not satisfy the requirement of audi alterm partem. 

The court observed, "the audi alteram partem rule, which, in essence, enforces the equity clause of Article 14 of the Constitution, is applicable not only to quasi judicial orders but to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party in question unless application of rule has been expressly excluded by Act or regulation or rule". 

Rejecting the argument that an alternative remedy existed, the court noted that an opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner despite the significant civil consequences flowing from the alteration. 

Background: 

Earlier, on July 13, 2026, the High Court had granted interim protection against coercive action in the FIR registered over allegations of juvenile marriage.

In April, the couple approached the Kerala High Court seeking a stay on the arrest of the couple, which was granted. The High Court later granted transit bail to the husband to seek bail before the competent court in MP.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha with Advocate Jerry Lopez

For Father: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahajan with Advocate Kamlesh Manwani

For State: Additional Solicitor General Senior Advocate S.V. Raju with Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta, Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj and Government Advocate Aditya Garg